Genetic Engineering’s Five Epic Fails

Despite claims from the likes of Monsanto and the biotech industry that GE crops are an environmental panacea and will feed the world, two decades after they first went on sale the evidence suggests that GE’s key golden promises are beginning to look more like epic failures…

Claim: #1 GE crops will reduce herbicide use

Then: Back in 1996, a Monsanto PR brochure entitled Biotechnology: Solutions for tomorrow's world dramatically claimed that its genetically engineered (GE) herbicide-tolerant crops would (1) "reduce total herbicide use" and (2) allow the use of "herbicides with preferred environmental characteristics."

But for the biotech giants, this isn't a failure: it's a business opportunity. In 1997, Greenpeace wrote that GE crops "will probably hasten the emergence of herbicide-resistant weeds…" and warned of the tacit intent of the biotech industry to establish a "genetic treadmill," where new genetic solutions will be introduced to replace GE crops that have become ineffective. In a recent press release, Dow AgroSciences stated that "an astonishing 86 percent of corn, soybean and cotton growers in the South have herbicide-resistant or hard-to-control weeds on their farms. The number of farmers impacted by tough weeds in the Midwest has climbed as well, and now tops 61 percent. Growers need new tools now to address this challenge." The new tools? New GE crops designed to resist older, more toxic chemicals, such as 2,-4D and dicamba. Welcome to the genetic treadmill.

FAIL.

Claim: #3 GE Contamination Isn't an Issue

The biotech industry has long argued that farmers should have the right to choose GE crops; however, it's now clear that the real concern is whether American farmers and food businesses can ever avoid GE contamination of crops or even entire supply chains.

These cases are no doubt just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to GE contamination, and illustrate the dangers our laissez-faire regulations will have on domestic and international food supply and trade.

FAIL.

Claim: #4 GE Crops Will Feed the World Sustainably

Monsanto's 1996 Environmental Annual Review predicted that biotechnology "will help immensely in closing the gap between hungry people and adequate food supplies." But this hasn't happened. First, just four crops account for almost every GE seed sown: Soy for animal feed, corn for animal feed and ethanol, as well as cotton and canola. Hardly crops that will help feed the world's poor and hungry. Second, claims that GE technology has increased crop yields are misleading. A new USDA report states that “GE seeds have not been shown to increase yield potentials of the varieties. In fact, the yields of herbicide-tolerant or insect-resistant seeds may be occasionally lower than the yields of conventional varieties if the varieties used… are not the highest yielding cultivars.” In other words, the biotech companies can only insert genes for crop protection traits—they are not genetically engineering increased yields, and are fundamentally reliant on conventional breeding strategies (see also Food and Water Watch's report, Failure to Yield).

What's more, independent research—notably the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development, which was compiled by over 400 independent scientists and endorsed by 58 countries—also finds no evidence of a general, sustained or reliable yield increase from GE crops; no evidence of a sustained reduction in costs to farmers; no evidence of a sustainable reduction in pesticide use; and a real risk that the technology could undermine local practices that enhance food security and economic stability. More recently, Danish researchers concluded that the claim that GE crops "are necessary to feed the world is no more than a self-serving advertising campaign…" and was driven "primarily by corporate interests, supported by GMO researchers' career interests."

Independent researchers argue that the dominance of Monsanto and the major food corporations in the global public discourse on feeding the world sustainably has led to an over-emphasis on GE crops (and animals) as the only possible solution, often at the expense of other techniques and alternative agronomic approaches such as agroecology, which could offer more appropriate and sustainable solutions. Of even more concern, however, is the fact that focusing exclusively on intensification and GE production will ultimately lead to a greater reduction in plant and animal biodiversity, further reducing the overall resilience and security of our global food production systems.

But even if you think the collateral damage to global biodiversity associated with GE crops and the intensification of farming is a necessary cost, my question is this: if GE crops don’t actually reduce overall pesticide use or increase crop yields, and if most independent scientists around the world contend that GE crop technology offers limited solutions to the challenges of poverty and hunger in developing countries, and further contend that available research funding would be much better spent on other research areas if we’re going to feed the world sustainably, then exactly who or what stands to benefit from the fixation on GE crop technology—other than Monsanto, its shareholders, and its army of lackeys?